This question strangely still evokes anxiety. It remains one invested with variable beliefs in cultural superiority (ie the primarcy of the Greeks), the central importance of Europeans, Asians, etc. Were black Africans involved in the creation of the early Egyptian society, certainly as its beginnings (the emergence of the two kingdoms) were in Upper Egypt, near Nubia, rather than Lower Egypt, the Delta region.
Shaw, Ian. Egypt and the Outside World. 2002. The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt.
There are a number of ways in which we can define the ancient Egyptians themselves as a distinct racial and ethnic group, but the question of their roots a nd their sense of their own identity has provoked considerable debate. Linguistically, they belonged to the Afro-Asiatic (Hamito-Semitic) family, but this is simply another way of saying that, as their geographical position implies, their language had some similarities to contemporary languages both in parts of Asia and in the Near East.
This, in some ways, is a Colonialist and Post-Colonialist debate, one that so far, although easily answered, has had no resolution. It should really not bother us. There is evidence that the early Sumerian population spoke several languages, one indeed possibly related to old Indian languages of the time. Nevertheless, Ian Shaw felt the need to include it in his lengthy academic discussion on Ancient Egyptian history.
As historians, will have to look at the facts and use them to better understand the beginnings of urban life.
Intersting question Stanley. It reminds me of the origin of the Sumerians and how unique their language was!
Hani 1, early in the Old Kingdom, clearly had Kushite features. Can we look now at possible mixed origins for Egypt, and learn from that?
I do not understand the question: "And why should it matter?" How can a scholar ask such a question?
It matters just as much as any other research question about facts does, be it about the type of ceramic found at one site or another, or about what language Jesus spoke, or about the causes of the Roman Empire's fall.
I'm sorry but you appear to misunderstand my use of the question-it is interrogative not a statement. The idea is that the matter is discussed, points and ideas raised, especially with respect to present day claims-probably justified-in black african's involvement in early civilisation.
Now, please, if you will, discuss.
I am quite annoyed with the above gentleman's comment, as though a limited grasp of English is acceptable, a lack of intelligence surely on this site is not?
I see that you are lacking what is sometimes called “scholarly detachment”. Perhaps you should cool down a bit. Are you sure you are a scholar /researcher?
Also, I have to ask you: Why in your opinion is my answer illogical (as only that would give you right to point to my ”lack of intelligence“). And as a matter of fact I have to admit my limited grasp of English: I do not know what „primarcy“ is.
As to your original question: I somehow may understand the difference between a question and a statement. But I am not sure that you do, or at least when to use either of them.
I believe I also understand that you wanted to say it just as a statement, NOT as a question. Because if the latter is the case, than my answer is justified.
Moreover and more ad rem: I think that your question about the ethnicity is not adequate to what you wished to discuss. You wanted to discuss NOT an ETHNIC question, but a RACIAL, or better: ANTHROPOLOGICAL. And you wanted to say that it does matter.
Clearly, you still do not understand. You still appear to understand this as a rthetorical question. Do you actually know what that is? Your attitude and clear inability to grasp things has to stop me interacting with you. I will certainly be more careful in future and frame my questions with a greater understanding of the range of intellectual ability on this site.
I have actually made no reference to ethnicity, nor racial characteristics as you imagine. You clearly also have no prior knowledge on the subject or the issues I have tried to raise.
I suggest you read up on these issues and become better informed-and consequently stop wasting people's time with ill-informed judgements. You can look at Bernal's work although this has been largely rejected, or there's an academic colleague of mine at Ottawa University who has been dealing with these matters.
Well, first some scholarly comments:
“I have actually made no reference to ethnicity,…” -
Yes you have: in the title of your original RG question: ”What ETHNICITY were the Ancient Egyptians?“
“You clearly also have no prior knowledge on the subject or the issues I have tried to raise.” –
You haven’t grasped that I did not oppose your ideas (whatever they may be) about the anthropological or ethnic components of the early Egyptian population, or whether ”black Africans“ were involved in creating ancient Egyptian culture or not, but reacted to your un-scholarly attempt (be it rhetorical or not) to draw attention to what you THOUGHT you HAD to say.
In my later comment, written after your utterance about my „lack of intelligence“ etc., I tried to remind you that there are more civilized ways of carrying scholarly discussion.
Your last comment, however, convinced me that it was in vain since you must be a young cocky student who may have read one book or two, but never learned a civilized manners of academic life. (I know the type).
You have not even learned how to provide simple bibliographical references („there's an academic colleague of mine at Ottawa University”).
I feel unfortunately required to explain my position on this matter as a consequence of the question being followed by the above person. Mr Witold appears to feel able to offer abusive, personal comments and accusations over something he appears to have no understanding of. Although it appears Mr Witold has a Phd from Sweden, I must conclude it is far easier to acquire them there.
Mt Witold appears to have noted the question above, and, I suspect decided it was rascist, Mr Witold being an excessively arrogant man it seems.
What is the subject about? Some 20 odd years ago Marcel Bernal published a book called Black Athena in which he described Ancient Egypt as conquering ancient Greece and thereby creating the later Greek culture. These claims were fervently fought by Classics Departments of the period. They are still, as I've discovered here. The issue really involved whether black africans, not one of Bernal's points, were involved with early civilisation. It has remained an issue since, and spawned claims from many black academics that in fact black people created all early civilisations. A complete absurdity, of course, but simply an acceptable backlash.
The point of the question? To discuss such matters. I was not to know surely that an ignorant man, knowing none of these matters, would decide, in a shocking display of arrogance, that he knew what I was asking, and that my question had, I assume, a rascist smell about it. I don't think that any of my further clarifications would provide such an interpretation. But Mr Witold, an excessively arrogant man, knows best.
As the Ancient Egyptian civilisation had its beginnings in Upper Egypt the possibility of black influence is high. Unfortunately we have in life many Mr Witolds. As the possibility is high, it is therefore necessary to discover what if any the black inhabitants of nearby Kush contributed to the emergence of Ancient Egyptian culture. Was their contribution, for example, the connection of kingship with divinity, an important part of that civilisation? The ethnic issue of Egypt has been of considerable interest to historians in order to understand its nature. The general conclusion is, probably as with early Mesopotamian culture, mixed. This is important for historians to know.
This piece was meant to be a celebration of difference and of ethnic mixing, but Mr Witold, an arrogant and ignorant man decided differently.
Mr Witold has produced an explanation above but not explained assertions like 'Are you really a scholar' while himself displaying no evidence in his language and assertions that he is. Is this just about a poor grasp of English, does he not understand how he came across?
Mr Witold, perhaps your intentions were genuine and if so go and re-learn your English, attempt to understand the nature of open questions. Your own appalling manner caused this, nothing else. You've spoilt a very good question.
Well, I must start with thanking you, Mr Stanley, for enlightening me about your position in the question raised by MARTIN (not Marcel) Bernal (in which, incidentally, I believe, you’re right; yes, I may know what Bernal’s book is about).
Unfortunately, as I ALREADY said, this question in its substance was not the point I uttered my opinion about. It was the FORM in which you raised it, and which - from the methodological point of view – was odd.
I wrote: “I do not understand the question: "And why should it matter?" How can a scholar ask such a question?”
I do not see how this comment/question of mine was abusive. I thought you would take it as a rhetorical question. And, in fact, initially you did, as in your first answer you wrote: ”I'm sorry but you appear to misunderstand my use of the question-it is interrogative not a statement.” It was not a substantially right answer (in my perception), but it was civilized. Yet apparently something in you did not allow you to put a full stop here, and you added an ABUSIVE comment about my ”lack of intelligence“. As arguments ad personam are not tolerated in academic discussions, I commented it by adding a question „Are you sure you are a scholar /researcher?”. I put this comment in the least aggressive form I could. (I hope you understand that your comment about my ”lack of intelligence“ deserved a much stronger reaction.)
And you continue to do so today by writing: „Mr Witold [incidentally, you do not know me so that you should address me by my first name] appears to feel able to offer abusive, personal comments and accusations…“, as if your own comment about my ”lack of intelligence“ were neither abusive, nor personal.
I do not know at which university you graduated, but you convinced me about a poor pedagogical work of your professors. They did not succeed in teaching you how to carry on a normal, civilized, academic discussion. You see, the role of the universities is not only to teach the students some material knowledge, but also to civilize those of them who need it.
You do not deserve a material answer, but nevertheless, FYI, I add one remark as to the substance itself of the problem.
The ancient Egypt was not a neighbour of any of the Cushitic peoples. The creators of the Meroe civilization (and, probably, only their ancestors could have been the ones contributing to the anthropological mixture of the ancient Egyptians) were probably Nubian peoples (who linguistically do not belong to the Afro-Asiatic phylum), not the Cushites (who do, just as the Egyptians).
Witold do you realise how aggressively you come across? And for your information my universities are considerably better than yours. Encapsulating me within an uncivilised format is strange coming from a man as seemingly arrogant as you. Witold, I thought I was dealing with a lout who had somehow got onto the site.
The term Kushite is used interchangeably with Nubian. Check your facts. There are several theories on the Kushites, some place them in Ethiopia. The Meroe civilisation was considerably later than what you imagine. The notion that black africans affected the early development of Egypt is a sound if undeveloped one, and as I mentioned more than sound if Huni 1 was indeed a black African. That would demonstrate early involvement and raise additional questions.
My question was sound, and no body else read into it what you did. I understand that academics in your field would find open questions alarming but next time mind your manners.
Hopefully, this disagreeable episode is over, but I must nevertheless reflect on a few points to do with what is academia and the differences in intelligence between those who practise different disciplines. Mr Witold reminds me of my early career in Classics, studying and lecturing, and the extreme, unwarranted arrogance of its participants. (Mr Witold remarked that I did not put in references. Do I really need to in a question which was placed to encourage debate, not now of course, and anyway are there not two fully visible beneath the question for further clarification?)
Mr Witold researches in important but narrow fields that require fixed academic practices, in which dotting is and crossing Ts are important and judged as essential to coherence. No problem there. But usually, but not always, it involves regurgitating endlessly written-upon and tenuous ideas of no great impact. Again, that also is fine. Within their very narrow field apparent excellence is easily obtained, requiring clerical virtues not truly cerebral ones. Nevertheless it inculcates within its practising groups an exaggerated view of their own abilities. Certainly what I found, and find with Mr Witold, is a resistance to ideas, especially new ideas, that is not in line with high intelligence.
My memory tells me that such academics grasp at narrow ideas, are rarely creative in their outlook, and take an arrogant, dismissive view of anything they are unfamiliar with. Self-importance is of more consequence than genuine research!
I look on the many original researchers busy on this site, compare them with the Witold's of this world and find little similarity. Unfortunately, the intellectual range of academics is clearly wide and the professor in one discipline would be a cowed, hopeless student in another.
This is an answer to your yesterday comment (I'll see later if your comment put today deserves an answer):
I will restrain myself from uttering any opinion on your method of pursuing an academic discussion, except by addressing your utterances:
>> Witold do you realise how aggressively you come across?
No, I do not. As I wrote in my former comment – I did not use any offensive or deprecating word, before you did.
>>And for your information my universities are considerably better than yours.
If you wish, check the place Uppsala U has on the Shanghai list.
>> Witold, I thought I was dealing with a lout who had somehow got onto the site.
Stanley, I thought I was dealing with a bi-polar person.
And ad rem:
>> The term Kushite is used interchangeably with Nubian. Check your facts.
I’m afraid you will have to do the checking. Some historians with no knowledge of ethnic or linguistic situation of the region, could mix these two terms, but they shouldn’t.
First a bit of historical linguistics: The Nubian language belongs to a totally different phylum (supra-family), whereas the Cushitic languages are a branch of Afro-Asiatic phylum, the other branches being (in the order of their leaving the common ground at what is today Sahara): Egyptian (perhaps leaving Sahara around 8000 BC), Chadic (main language: Hausa in Nigeria), Cushitic (Oromo in Ethiopia, Somali), Berber and Semitic. The Proto-Egyptians moved east and stayed first in what is today Sudan and Upper Egypt; the Proto-Cushites also moved east but stayed pretty much where they live today (Horn of Africa, including what is today Ethiopia). Only after the Proto-Libyo-Berbers and Proto-Semites moved north to the Mediterranean coast, and the Semites left the African continent moving to the Middle East, did the Egyptians move north (or the latter pushed the Proto-Semites west to Asia), thus breaking the contact between the Semites and the Libyo-Berbers (the languages of these two families are closest to each other which points to the fact that they were living in contact with each other, i.e. together, longer than with the Proto-Chadics, Proto-Egyptians and Proto-Cushites (the fact of Semitization of some northern Cushites is the effect of a much later (perhaps as late as the first millennium BC) immigration of the South-Semitic speakers from what is today Yemen over to what is today Eritrea and Northern Ethiopia (Tigray province), and then during the historical period – further south.
The Nubian language, on the other hand, is totally different from all those named above and belongs to the so-called Nilotic family (itself perhaps a part of Nilo-Saharan phylum, but I am not competent in that area).
When I say Semites, Cushites, Chadics etc., I use an abbreviated form of a more correct notion “people speaking Semitic, Cushitic or Chadic etc. languges“, and thus I am NOT uttering any opinion about the anthropological types of those speakers, or the colour of their skin. On the other hand, there seems to be little doubt about the coulor of the skin of the Nubians, and since they once lived south of the First Nile Cataract, it must be them (and not the Cushites) with whom the Proto-Egyptians interacted and mixed (to a degree).
If we take the notion of „Kush“: it comes from the Classical (= Biblical) Hebrew, in which it just means Africa. Also in Modern Hebrew „Kushi“ simply means „an African, a black person“ (also: „Ethiopian“). The Israelis call even the Falashas (Ethiopian Jews, now in Israel) „Kushim“.
Due to a vague knowledge of the Middle Eastern peoples about the geographic, ethnic and cultural realities of Africa, the term „Kush“ has always been vague, also in Antiquity, just as actually the term „Aithiopia“ for the Greeks – a country were dark-skinned people leave, and this term included India (and due to that Ptolemy believed that there was a land connection between Africa and India, even though it could not be checked empirically because that region (Gr. klima) was too hot and dangeroius due to ferocious animals.
Both terms in the use of one or another author or during one or another epoch could be limited to a more specific territory (as the history of the term "Ethiopia" shows) and even overlap each other, but mixing of them today is not advisable, and in the light of historical linguistics - erroneous.
>>> The Meroe civilisation was considerably later than what you imagine.
I do not imagine. I know. Otherwise - no argument here. That’s why I wrote ”… their ANCESTORS could have been the ones contributing to the anthropological mixture of the ancient Egyptians”
My last comments:
>>> (Mr Witold remarked that I did not put in references. Do I really need to in a question which was placed to encourage debate, not now of course, and anyway are there not two fully visible beneath the question for further clarification?)
You distort my remarks on purpose in order to make your point, which is to show that you and you only are right.
I wrote: “You have not even learned how to provide simple bibliographical references („there's an academic colleague of mine at Ottawa University”).” and this is very clear – unless you have some sort of mental condition – I was NOT addressing your initial question, ”which was placed to encourage debate”, but the ”reference” to a colleague of yours.
>>> Mr Witold researches in important but narrow fields that require fixed academic practices, in which dotting is and crossing Ts,…
To explain for other readers of this discussion: Mr Stanley is referring here - in deprecatory way - to philological methods of text critique.
Such activity, he continues, ”inculcates within its practising groups an exaggerated view of their own abilities”, and moreover ”such academics grasp at narrow ideas, are rarely creative in their outlook, and take an arrogant, dismissive view of anything they are unfamiliar with.”
I’ll try again to translate his utterances for those who may have missed the point – Mr Stephen says that the philologists are simply petty-minded people dealing with things that has no intellectual value. In other words, those who do it have no creative mind, and are simply stupid, yet arrogant.
Such opinion can be held only by a person with a very limited cognitive resources, who probably listened to too many student jokes about their university teachers, but who themselves do not understand much and have never performed a tedious but solid philological work, and consequently have no idea what it is or what it is for.
Then I’ll comment only shortly, because Mr Stephen – notwithstanding his assertion that he had a ”career in Classics” - will not understand it anyway, as he has shown us already in, actually, all of his comments.
Dealing in correct way with DETAILS and ability to handle them in intellectually correct manner, is a way the Western civilization won its highest achievements. Without learning that ability, be it in quantum physics or brain surgery, but also text editing, a civilization cannot rise and survive.
Writing at the beginning ”Hopefully, this disagreeable episode is over” and then attacking me again, Mr Stephen convinced me of one thing: He really needs professional help.
"Egypt was of Africa, and is in Africa", any attempts to "detach" it and place it in some mythical, or geographical space called "Middle or Near East" is simply a political exercise and has less relevance to ancient history. I find it completely misplaced when "biblical" etymologies for "Hamites" or "Shemites", that are clearly gotten from Noah´s sons: Ham and Shem are used to define or classify historical or factual events. Here, some biblical mythology has been mixed and confused with evidenced history thereby obscuring the truth (e.g. the creation story in the bible is a plagiarized form of the creation myth of AE that was centered in Elephantine over 1700 years before the first manuscript of the Hebrew Bible). On the other hand, Egyptologists (or Euro-centrists??) have no clear definition of ethnicity, nor do they have clear "ethnic markers" to distinguish or classify ancient Egyptians. Pre-dynastic Egypt had a history that was deeply entrenched within the African cultural, linguistic, religious and social continuum that was predominant within the North-East African geographical space. It was from there that pre-dynastic Egypt derived its origins and there is, enough evidence to prove that. How could AE sustain a mono-ethnic, mono-linguistic and mono-cultural civilization without external influence for over 5000 years? It is like birthing a baby, cutting it from any external contacts and then expecting it to learn to speak, socialize and educate itself alone. "Egypt was and is Africa´s child adopted by foreign parents".
Egyptian unity came from Upper Egypt. Just a note, many early civilisations were possibly the result of early mixes of peoples and cultures. The Sumerian text was, some believe, developed not to fit a particular language but several.
Of course, AE was too, a result of diverse peoples coming together at some point in time. Its not as if, all converged at time zero with no indigenous or host communities on the ground. AE was culturally, economically, religiously and militarily a "super power" that had existed prior to coming of all the rest. The question is, how far back in time (deep history) can we go to get the "first people"?
David, there are no first people. At a guess those of Lower Egypt would have been similar to Libya and perhaps Asiatics having come out of the now desert as it went into aridification. But North Africa was always a mixture as was the Near East.
Egypt was a polity, an abstract.
I am curious as to the context of your statement, "there are no first people." Do you mean, specifically, with regards to the origins of Ancient Egyptians? If so, how can that be a valid statement?
Egypt was and remains a geographic feature or territory in North Africa which has been subject to many people possessed of certain common features, skin colours, etc. Populations of every part of the world are subject to change. Definitions change.
That doesn't quite answer my question, though. If populations and definitions change, in this regard, what is the ethnic, racial identity of the original people [the first people that David Lomeling mentioned) of the Egyptian area? (Seems we would need to know the original in order to access the "change" )
L. Winkler,
Why?
The occupation of Egypt is usually considered connected to the desertification of North Africa and the migration of the occupants to the Nile River region. As the North African rim would have remained occupied they either did not migrate or were already there around the delta. Nevertheless, we have no reason to believe they constituted an early or earliest level of occupation. In fact, initial human populations would have been limited in number and probably similar in type to the initial European homo sapien sapien populations. Hunter-gatherers, their presence would have been limited.
Wilkin,
I refer you to the findings of the earliest human remains- "Nazlet Khater Man" about 30 to 35,000 years ago, found in Upper Egypt in early 1980s. Neither the Asiatics nor Europeans (note: the Neaderthals had just gone extinct) were known. There could have been other people in Lower Egypt during pre-dynastic period around the Delta region , however, there are no records about them, let alone their "racial categorization". If any, they must have been the "Aamu or Asiatics" that came between 2,000-1,800 BCE, well after Kemet was already "civilized".
Again, the term "Near East" is a political term and has absolutely no geographical bearings. It was a term coined by Egyptologists to transfer Egypt out of Africa and literally hand it over to the Asiatics or Arabs, who in my opinion never contributed anything to AE´s civilization.
Thank you Winkler,
The dilemma of most Egyptologists is, never acknowledging that there was a pre-dynastic history and that there were indigenous peoples in Egypt. Equally, the distinction between what is "Egypt" and "Nubia" (or Africa????) is terse and only lends a colonial taste of drawing of "state boundaries". This is manifested in such terms as "Black Pharaohs of Kush" etc.by Egyptologists. There were people in AE before the "Near Easterners" came and they were Kemetians - Blacks.
Granted, nothing wrong there. That there were earlier populations in Egypt is fine but they were not stable. The reading I have done is new to me, suggesting the appearance of modern humans in North Africa, but this contradicts an earlier appearance and the existence of modern human types elsewhere.
That present-day European types arrived late in Europe tends to be accepted and prior to their arrival dark-skinned types existed there, which seems very plausible. My notion is that Europeans emerged originally further east than we imagine. I will continue to research this particular individual but could not find anything to indicate 'black' in the sense you mean it, although the writers specify possible Bush Men types.
I have never doubted that dark-skinned types colonised many regions as this fits in with our understanding of human types in South Africa, etc. What I discovered is what should be expected and that is ill-defined types, not necessarily fitting any present-day morphology.